People who are in favour of grammar schools....

[BertrandRussell]

....what is your proposal for the majority who are not selected?

Statistically if you take pupils with low grades and spread them around all schools you can bring the average school statistics up.

Which would be much fairer, because who wants to go to or work in a failing school? And on top of that, the failing school label becomes a vicious circle whereby anyone who cares about education sends their kid elsewhere.

I did see an interesting proposal today in the Guardian - if we want selective schools, then failing schools should be the ones to select the bright kids. They get the interested parents and the good exam results to raise the profile of the school and are then no longer failing which raises the profile and eventually the Ofsted rating. That would do more to improve failing schools than take out the few remaining kids that might have a chance of doing well in their GCSEs.

I have become anti grammar school despite actively getting my two DDs in to them. This is because the difference in opportunities I am not just talking educationally from what DS is getting at his 'naice' Secondary Modern is ridiculous . The girls have opportunities though school trips working abroad and invites to friends villas abroad and numerous university trips.

The difference is there is not even a skiing holiday this year for DS , because of a lack of interest. This is not even typical modern school .

However, I do not think it is correct to define the majority of grammar school families as rich, wealthier or comfortably off. The vast majority are just making the best of what education is available and probably only marginaly better off than many on FSM.

No, they mean schools failing to meet floor targets. But those schools are instantly put on an Ofsted hit list so would also become RI or Inadequate.

To take the sporting analogy further: so the poor kid who doesn't own a bike, but might just be a Bradley Wiggins, doesn't get the chance.
All the rich and poor kids get to go to a velodrome where bikes are provided and they are all tested to see who is best. Yes rich kids can have a bike at home to practice on but a poor family with aspirations can borrow a bike for free to practice on. It might not be perfect but I think its better than only letting the rich children in to the velodrome.

Typically a nonsense suggestion from the Guardian . The idea to propose a 'draft' system and allocate bright students to 'shit' schools is just to try and ridicule parents seeking a suitable school.

This is straight out of the kind of educational philosophy that was evident in school sport. The school would take their their best players off to give the other school a chance.

Left wing ideological crap that helps nobody apart from the ideologues.

noblegiraffe, I would be up for giving the new progress/attainment 8 measure a few years before allowing more grammars. But skeptical as to how that would change the wealth selection we have at the moment.

MumTryingHerBest, I only have anecdotal evidence it can provide this in grammar schools, there are none in my area. However I do have evidence that selective comprehensives & selective faith schools in my area provide it. If selective comprehensives could find a way to allow gifted academics in then the problem would be solved, but I cant see a mechanism for that other than an academic test.

Typically a nonsense suggestion from the Guardian

It wasn't a serious suggestion, the person making it is totally anti-selective education. But why is it nonsense? Surely if the shit school becomes the grammar with the grammar intake then it would become awesome because grammars are awesome. It's results would certainly increase.

failing schools should be the ones to select the bright kids

I like this idea but it has challenges. Local failing secondary joined an academy trust around time when my DC was Y5, they went on charm offensive at primaries promising change. Line was if ALL your children come at the same time you will have the power to make changes. Went along to open day and they had fenced off a third of the school, they had literally fenced off Y7 playground, class rooms and dinning hall from the rest off the school. The head proudly announced you no longer have to worry about your kids being bullied because Y8-11 cant get at them anymore.

I asked, "what happens when they go into Y8... Ummm?"

Someone else asked, "what subjects do you set in?.... Ummm?"
Someone else asked, "can you do 3 sciences for GCSE?.... Ummm?"

I ran for the hills.

Surly being on an ofsted hit list means you have to improve or the government is going to take action. Why is it bad for failing schools (NOT pupils) are targeted for improvement. Often the problem is a bad head and it they need to be gotten rid of then we need ofsted to take action and step in.

Because teachers don't tend to stick around a

Sorry, my iPad randomly posted. Obviously we want Ofsted to step in and target schools for improvement, but they tend to be horribly pressured places and good teachers don't tend to stick around. I think Ofsted are now recognising that this expectation of rapid change is a bad thing (new super head being parachuted in leads to short term improvement and long term disaster, where slow steady improvements actually stick), and they are giving grace periods after a bad inspection before coming in again (18 months?)

But if a failing school became selective, well that would be a much easier way of turning it around. www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/20/failing-schools-grammars-choice-brightest-pupils

If a failing school became selective you would probably need a new head and new staff. Where would all the old pupils go?

Its perfectly feasible if you close the school one year and reopen in September as a completely new school. I wouldn't mind that. Giving new parents controlling say on the Governing body as well would also help.

Any school that becomes selective would become selective from Y7 only. No school would be able to go from comp to selective overnight without having to boot out a huge number of middle and low ability children, so that's not going to happen anywhere.

As the article says "So, here’s a provocative idea. If we are thinking of allowing more selection in schools, why not give that opportunity to failing ones first? Allow them to pick pupils by ability for five years and then, once they have sucked in all the middle-class parents and experienced teachers, and results have shot up – things we know happen in grammar schools – they will be rated good, and we can reopen their doors to all. Selection could be the reset button against underperformance. Parents wouldn’t have to choose the school. The children would take the 11-plus and be allocated a school place."

2This is straight out of the kind of educational philosophy that was evident in school sport. The school would take their their best players off to give the other school a chance. "

Sandy, do you have evidence of this happening? it sounds like PCGornMad bollocks.

So allow selection in schools that no one will go to because it doesn't have the teachers or the head that know how to cater for highly academic children. Put hem in an environment where they will be bullied for being nerds and stand back and laugh when it doesn't work? I don't get at what point you laugh?

I saw a local failing school on results day had the usual kids with As and A*s so it would appear to be entirely possible.

Interesting that your instinct is that they will need protecting from the rough bullies in the older years. That's really why people want grammars isn't it? To keep the ruffians away.

It was the experience that I first had when I saw a segregated Y7 from rest of school and learnt of the bear pit going into Y8.

My DC has been bullied several times at average comp for being a nerd but it was very well handled when I pushed the issue so it hasn't put me off comps.

You always bring it back to A/A*, it not about the grades for me its about tthe education they are missing out on, the waste of time in so many classes. If comps worked for all I would support them, but they cant/dont.

FYI DCs comp has a great head and very good at getting rid of bad teachers / supporting good teachers but it just doesn't have the resources to do anything but push the average. Its not any ones fault.

"If comps worked for all I would support them, but they cant/dont."

My dc's comp does.

Double the national average of dc's on free school meals.

Kids off to Oxford to do PPE and English, Russell Group uni's for medicine, law, Purcell and Guildhall for music.

So why do you keep saying comps 'can't' cater for high ability children. There's your proof that they can.

"If comps worked for all I would support them, but they cant/dont."

My dc's comp does not.

So its ok for minifingerz but screw everyone else?

I have never said that "comps 'can't' cater for high ability children", I have said that NOT ALL comps cant.